HRM vs my fitness pal

a_candler

So I have the Polar arm band heart rate monitor, I understand that most are not accurate. That being said, would this type be more accurate than what Myfitnesspal tells me for calories burned?

My current exercise is an almost 7 mile walk- first mile is level and easy, the next 3 miles are all uphill with no stopping then I jog (slowly) back down for a total of about 1 hour and 30-40 min. Polar says avg of 800 calories burned. Myfitnesspal for 90 min walk shows about 400. Granted this doesn't account for the uphill energy used. But that's a big diff.

Which one would you go by?

harper16

I'd go off my fitness pal. I don't see how your heart rate can determine calories burned.

cmriverside

Oh, I have the perfect reading for you! (Right at the moment the personal portion(s) of Myfitnesspal are down for maintenance, but in a few minutes you'll be able to read it.)

This author has been in the fitness industry for several decades:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

sijomial

Heart rate is a poor metric to use for walking, the intensity is simply a bit too low.
The problem of it being a long duration and low intensity exercise also means that the gross calorie estimate is going to be significantly too high when you really want a net calorie estimate.

At 170lbs for walking I use 50cals a mile as a usable net calorie estimate.

NorthCascades

Calories burned walking = ((weight in pounds) / 3) * (miles walked)

AnnPT77

NorthCascades wrote: »

Calories burned walking = ((weight in pounds) / 3) * (miles walked)

Which the very nice, smart Mr. Cascades might have also pointed out is a relatively conservative formula for *net* exercise calories for walking - exactly what we'd like, for MFP logging purpose, an exercise estimate that doesn't include base calories.

There's one for running, too, but I can never remember what it is, since I never run. I think it's around twice as much . . . 0.63 or something like that as the factor, maybe? (The best way to get someone to give you the right factor is for me to name a specific one that's wrong , so watch this space.)